Post by Graveyardbride on Feb 8, 2014 7:49:30 GMT -5
A Time When Witches Cast a Spell in Real Life
The cackling witch on a broomstick is a benign figure for kids dressing up at Halloween. But 400 years ago, witchcraft was a terrifying collective fear, for both the people who believed themselves cursed and the often innocent women executed for it.
In her book Witches: A Tale of Sorcery, Scandal and Seduction, historian Tracy Borman estimates 100,000 people were tried for witchcraft between 1450 and 1750 in Europe. “Kids dress up at Halloween and it’s all quite jolly but that’s totally turned on its head from when it was the number one evil in society, ” the author says. “What fascinated me is I always thought the stereotypical image of the broomstick and hat was a modern Hollywood invention but it was totally authentic. I saw a 14th century engraving and she looks just like that.”
The English taste for the occult had diminished until James I took the throne in 1603. Introduced to the subject during a stay at Elsinore castle, he later wrote the book Daemonologie in which he sanctioned the practice of witch-hunting. “Unable to get back to Scotland from Denmark, he became convinced he couldn’t sail because his fleet had been bewitched and became a crusader against witchcraft,” she writes. “Suddenly everyone’s trying to flatter the king’s obsession and it spawns a literary flurry of witches and devils like Shakespeare’s Macbeth.”
That was bad news for the elderly, misfits and women practicing traditional medicine in small villages. In an age where harvest failures, mysterious diseases and sudden death were frightening and unexplained, it was easy to believe that “evil was at work,” Broman says. “It was a very insular society. If anyone didn’t fit in or were poor or stood out, it was a handy way of scapegoating someone, or settling petty local squabbles. “Women were already second-class citizens, chattels owned by husbands and fathers, and single women were the lowest of the low. Anyone could be accused, for arguing with your neighbor, not attending church, the sickness of someone’s pig. Once accused, your life wouldn’t be worth living. There was vigilante justice and violence.”
Although up to 50 percent were acquitted, for those on trial, the average court case listed 20 minutes. Confessions were common, many wrought after sleep-deprivation or torture when jailers would put words in their mouths.
According to the author, “It was believed that when a witch made her pact with the devil, he would leave a mole or teat – witch pricking used a dagger to stab every mark on their body testing for the devil’s mark which supposedly wasn’t painful to the touch.” This might involve stripping the witch and stabbing the genital area. “There was clearly a sexual nature to it. In a quite buttoned-up society, it gave license to express certain desires, the witchcraft pamphlets were like the porn of the day, giving intimate detail of the witch’s examination,” she continues. Another test involved throwing the accused into a cesspool; if she floated she was guilty, if innocent she drowned.
Borman highlights the 1618 case of widow Joan Flowers and her two daughters Margaret and Philippa. It was unusual because it involved a member of the aristocracy, their previous employer, the Earl of Rutland. “They’d enjoyed an unusual amount of favor but other servants hated them and hounded them out with suspicions and rumor.” When one of the Earl’s sons died in convulsions and the other fell sick, the women were accused of cursing them. “The Earl was one of the most distinguished men at James’s court, and the bewitching to death of his two sons was the equivalent of today’s headline news.
“The Earl resisted bringing charges for a long time and only when medical cures failed did he make accusations, in desperation while his second son was still alive, thinking if you accused a witch the victim would be cured.” Joan died en route to prison, her two daughters were hanged at Lincoln, and once the second son died, the Earl’s daughter Katherine married King James’s favorite, the Machiavellian Duke of Buckingham who inherited the estate.
Source: Bridget Galton, Hampstead & Highgate Express, February 6, 2014.